Everything you ever wanted to know about the CA SCOTUS decision

Wednesday, 27th October 2010 10:33 GMT By Patrick Garratt


The SCOTUS blog has posted up a giant preview of the arguments we can expect from both sides of the Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association review before the Supreme Court on November 2.

See, Ted? Maybe you should say things the MGP can take “out of context” more often.

The post should tell you everything you need to know about the imminent ruling, which, if passed, will make it illegal to sell mature-rated games to minors in California.

CA governor Schwarzenegger has already tried and failed to get this through the Court, which chucked it out previously based on the fact that it’s obviously unconstitutional.

GamePolitics describes the update as a “great read”. We’re going to completely disagree with that on common sense grounds, but what the hey. Check this out:

Discussing whether violent video games deserve any First Amendment shield, the state brief contended that — for minors — there is no real difference between “offensively violent” expression and “sexually explicit material.” Thus, the state makes its argument for extending the Ginsberg flexible standard for minors’ access to expression from obscenity to violence. A strict scrutiny standard for evaluating expression, the state brief asserted, should be reserved for use in evaluating adults’ access to “a robust marketplace of ideas” that is not appropriate for children.

Yeah? Knock yourself out.



  1. Hunam

    Being an opressed brit this is what we have already, and mostly it provides a shield to the gaming industry because when they make an adult game, they can point out that kids aren’t allowed to play it and can tell people who caused the hot coffee insanity to be quiet and play mario.

    #1 4 years ago
  2. Freek

    The situation in America is different. Over here games, movies and music are all rated and restricted. Stores also sell all of them, to adults.

    In the US, this law is only targeting games. Violent movies? That’s fine, but not games.
    That’s the problem. The law isn’t comming from a sensible place, but rather a political agenda.
    Add onto that major retail chains who won’t sell adult rated media and you end up with a rather nasty situation the games industrie is rightly fighting.

    #2 4 years ago
  3. Michael O’Connor

    @2 I’m pretty sure it’s already illegal to sell violent movie to kids. The existing US movie ratings are legally binding, last time I checked.

    I don’t see that problem with this. In fact, I’d say it’s about damned time.

    #3 4 years ago
  4. Freek

    Nope, the MPAA is a purely volentary and informative rating system that has no legal binding what so ever.

    #4 4 years ago
  5. Phoenixblight

    Freek is right MPAA is run by the big studios and not the government at all, the government is not involved.
    But Freek you are wrong about “In the US, this law is only targeting games. Violent movies? That’s fine, but not games.”

    All big chains restrict minors from buying R and up movies its in fact similar to what all stores do for games. Schwarzenegger is just a moron and trying to find a way for the government to get involved where the government doesn’t need to be. He has been pushing this since he has been in office and it has failed 2-3 times because the supreme court has found it unconstitutional.

    #5 4 years ago
  6. Stephany Nunneley

    Well, I do know that over here, if a kid is under 17 they cannot get into an R rated film without supervision, and this means you can’t just buy the kids a ticket and go on about your merry way, but you have to sit there with them. I tried that with my brother when he was 16, and I had to buy myself a ticket, walk in with him and his buddies and casually sneak out the back to leave them alone. Eventually, they were made to leave because they were no longer supervised. Whether all this is voluntary or not I have no idea, but I can recall back in the 1800s when I tried to buy an R-rated film at the store or rent one, I had to show ID which was odd because you could buy a pack of smokes at 14.

    #6 4 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.